How to attack Christianity

[Meh Gerbil]

On the other hand, we have extensive calls to repent/believe, and commands to make disciples, making it pretty clear that we are expected to make a choice nonetheless.

I have to admit I'm not comfortable with salvation being dependent upon any state of mind I might achieve.
I'm too frail, too easily misled, too easily deceived - I'd rather have salvation dependent upon his faithfulness instead of my faith.

At the moment you include me in the process of salvation you've effectively placed the eternal state of a conscious soul into the hands of a bumbling idiot.
Giving me even a modicum of control is a guaranteed death sentence.

[Carrikature]

Not sure about that. My mother could love me unconditionally but what if I had nothing to do with her? Or separated myself from that love? Would it do me any good?

It might if it means never getting written out of the will.

[Roy]

If I wanted to attack Christianity I'd ...

What are you referring to as "Christianity"?

Christians collectively?
The organised church hierarchies?
The tenets and creeds?
The idea that Jesus was divine?
His philosophy?
Your own personal interpretation of the NT?

[Carrikature]

If by accepted you mean some formula for a legal transfer of forgiveness then yes, the unconditional element is gone.
If by accepted you mean living in line with reality then no, it remains unconditional.

For example, if I placed millions of dollars in your bank account:
1: If the transfer of those funds meant you had to sign paper work before you could use the money then that would be conditional.
2: If the transfer of those funds meant you would simply start spending money then that would be unconditional.

So I think that even you as a non-believer are already forgiven and you may choose to live in what is already true or continue to live as if that is not true.
If anything, I think being lost is the conditional state - I think people have to choose to reject the new reality of unconditional love and forgiveness.

So what happens to me if I choose to reject the new reality? I would still be forgiven for that rejection if it's truly unconditional.

[Meh Gerbil]

So what happens to me if I choose to reject the new reality? I would still be forgiven for that rejection if it's truly unconditional.

I think that is true.

And yes, I know you're poking holes here (1) and this would be a problem if I were anything a True Christian(tm).
Just doing some brain-storming here: I don't think people are condemned because of an absence of forgiveness nor do I view hell (if it exists) as punishment.


NOTES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Nicely played, it shows you're paying attention

[Meh Gerbil]

That is weird, but I don't know of anyone who actually believes that.

I could use the early writings of the church fathers, official statements of doctrine from your church, and the confession of faith you signed at your own baptism to refute your position; however, Trout has told me that I'm not permitted to stir up the bees nest tucked under the hats of the orthodox brethren at TWEB without losing my salvation.

He has advised me for the benefit of my own health since I've not yet fully recovered from my last run in with orthodoxy.
I'll spare you the details, suffice it to say a weekend bender of sanctified wine combined with a case of stolen incense resulted in severe burns when my facial hair ignited.

Peace.

[Roy]

I don't know... Atheists are pretty quick to point out how hypocritical Christians are. And we are. We rail against sin, while sinning ourselves. We just have to keep in mind that we are forgiven even though we are hypocrites. Which to an atheist makes no sense at all.

It makes perfect sense given your worldview and your attempts to at least try not to be hypocrites..

[One Bad Pig]

He has advised me for the benefit of my own health since I've not yet fully recovered from my last run in with orthodoxy.
I'll spare you the details, suffice it to say a weekend bender of sanctified wine combined with a case of stolen incense resulted in severe burns when my facial hair ignited.

Peace.

I was going to say that this would be highly improbable given Orthodox practice, but I keep forgetting that you're gerbil-sized, so it doesn't take much wine to send you on a weekend bender. My priest mostly uses wine from a Jewish vintner. Guess he didn't get the memo about the Shepherd's Guide.

[Juvenal]

I'll spare you the details, suffice it to say a weekend bender of sanctified wine combined with a case of stolen incense resulted in severe burns when my facial hair ignited.

I was going to say that this would be highly improbable given Orthodox practice, but I keep forgetting that you're gerbil-sized, so it doesn't take much wine to send you on a weekend bender.

Seriously, piglet, you're slipping if you can't tell metaphor when see it. He's obviously talking about free-basing.

[InspectorG]

If I wanted to attack Christianity I'd level my attacks at the teachings about the love and grace of God.

Reasons why I'd attack there:
1: Most people are convinced they're entirely unworthy of love or grace.
2: Most people are too proud to want to accept one way love or grace.
3: The idea of anyone as powerful as a God loving us is utterly ridiculous.
4: The entire world operates on an legalistic system so love and grace are foreign concepts.

So if you approach someone with love/grace they'll claim to be unworthy, resist it because they're too proud to accept a freebie, mock the idea that anyone with God like power would let anything slide, and then be confused by the offer because it's unlike anything they've experienced. The hard part about being a Christian isn't giving up sin but giving up on doing good.

This is why Christianity is full of people who are nervous/legalistic wrecks.
They don't actually believe the core of the faith.
Seriously, atheists, it's easy pickings.

Interesting.

Pertaining to your points:

1. I wouldnt say most, there is likely an uninterested segment of the population as well. Love can have numerous meanings, dependent on language and culture. Some people need more love than others it appears. Grace is seen nowadays as just acting in a non-clumsy manner. So the divine version is kinda outside the realm of the average person's experience.

2. Proud, perhaps. But i would include perceived social isolation/lack of tribe + anxiety + passive Consumerism + technological advances as impediments from people from accepting open camaraderie let alone more personal affection. Would be interested in what more tribal societies would think about this.

3. Not so. Parents and children would at least understand, or maybe even pet owners. Siblings. Perhaps even recipients from wealthy philanthropists.

4. Legalistic, yeah. But also linguistically, culturally, as well as individual cases of people who experienced trauma/abuse.

IMO

If i wanted to attack Theism, i would attack the Supernatural argument.
Most can see the appeal in Materialism and science/technology will provide Virtual Reality in about 5 years(in its earliest iterations - OcculusRift/etc). When VR can trigger/induce a DMT experience, anyone can theoretically have a supernatural experience regardless of cultural trappings.
Plus the burden of proof on a Theist is pretty steep getting un-interested parties to accept previous ancient one-off events that came from long ago/far away/culturally different as being real let alone the basis of a belief regarding their future health(afterlife).


If i wanted to attack Christianity in particular it would be a two prong attack on 2 fronts:
A. An Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibenevolent Entity that created reality had fore-knowledge of future humans who would not see warrant in his message but altered nothing to better communicate said message. Perhaps his message only appeals to those naturally inclined to like it at first sight, culturally born into it, or after experiencing some trauma?

B. Politics of the Church through history as well as the effort Christianity as a whole spends on defense vs detractors instead of cleaning its own house of shysters/TV Evangelists/Pri$on Mini$ters/etc. Quality Control, basically.

[Meh Gerbil]

If i wanted to attack Christianity in particular it would be a two prong attack on 2 fronts:
A. An Omniscient/Omnipotent/Omnibenevolent Entity that created reality had fore-knowledge of future humans who would not see warrant in his message but altered nothing to better communicate said message. Perhaps his message only appeals to those naturally inclined to like it at first sight, culturally born into it, or after experiencing some trauma?

B. Politics of the Church through history as well as the effort Christianity as a whole spends on defense vs detractors instead of cleaning its own house of shysters/TV Evangelists/Pri$on Mini$ters/etc. Quality Control, basically.

I think most 'anti-apologetics', powerful as they may be, work on Christians who have already de-converted.
This would be the corollary to 'apologetics' being for those who are already in the fold.
Those things are important but play a role after the fact.

I've read many de-conversion/conversion accounts and I get the impression (perhaps wrong) that the data has always been second to love.
I understand that the empiricists here will disagree with that claim, I'm just arrogant enough to believe I know them better than they know themselves.
I don't think anyone de-converts on purely logical grounds which is one reason why I don't put much stock in logical syllogisms, constructs, and theories.

I'd back up that assertion with Cor 13, the ministry of Jesus Christ, and a life time of my own experience.

[flowers92]

The only real way to disprove Christianity is to demonstrate without a doubt that the resurrection of Jesus did not happen. That is the most serious step of faith regarding NT but unfortunately (or fortunately) for skeptics is the fact that they can't disprove truth

Even Rome & the jews failed back then... everything else regarding Jesus & scripture is even more substantiated.

[KingsGambit]

I think the best argument against Christianity is the problem of evil and it's not particularly close. I still readily admit that I have no idea where to begin, and the existence of predation in prehistoric creatures eliminates the easy answer "The Fall explains everything". I feel that I have sufficient warrant on other grounds for my belief in Christianity to trust God on this one.

[flowers92]

I think the problem of evil is an argument for God's existence. That 1 is easy.

[InspectorG]

I don't think anyone de-converts on purely logical grounds which is one reason why I don't put much stock in logical syllogisms, constructs, and theories.

I'd back up that assertion with Cor 13, the ministry of Jesus Christ, and a life time of my own experience.

For sure, i would also bet that most deconversions are due to either intense emotional experiences/initiations or traumas.

But if the biggest support for a religion is a subjective, presumably 'Peak' experience, then a well thought out set/setting for DMT(dimethyltriptamine) usage would likely trump all religious experiences. It claims no supernatural and is repeatable. Little to no detriment to health. Does not require priestcraft. Basically, chemistry.